Hi,

> It seems like batteries' adoption isn't quite as thorough as expected.
> We in the batteries devel team would love to know why you don't use
> batteries.  Here's some of our guesses:

Batteries is a great project, and you guys shouldn't feel discouraged
if it doesn't take over the world overnight.  There's unfamiliarity and
inertia to overcome, and that takes time.  Personally, I've installed
Batteries and played with it, but I'm not using it (yet) on my projects.
Going back to your list, here's why:
 
> 2) It's not 1.0 yet, I'll try it then

That's indeed a factor.


> 3) It makes my executables too big

This used to be a bigger problem.  Previous versions of Batteries would
pack everything into a module, disabling the linker's ability to link
only effectively used code.  Thankfully newer versions are going towards
a flatter hierarchy.


> 4) It's too hard to install (dependencies, godi failures)

Never ran into this problem.


> 5) It's difficult to compile against

Not an issue.


> 6) It doesn't work on my platform

Not an issue.


> 7) It uses camlp4

Not an issue for me.  There's this thing called a "build system" that
should handle all that transparently, so I couldn't care less if it
required carrier pigeons to compile my programs.  But yes, I admit
it may be an issue for more constrained platforms.


> 8) Other (please explain)

a) Lack of exposure to the advantages of Batteries.  It borrows lots of
   cool ideas from Haskell, but that may not be immediately apparent.
   You guys should take advantage of the Ocaml Planet to run a publicity
   campaign: you can make a number of tutorial posts showing the "old"
   way versus the Batteries way.  There's more to Batteries than just
   a collection of APIs, and that message may not be getting through.

b) I'm already using Extlib extensively, and that reduces the advantage
   for Batteries.  (Same way the Minitel slowed down Internet adoption
   in France in the mid-nineties?)


Best regards,
Dario Teixeira